RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thishereboi -> RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (6/15/2013 10:23:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69 And let's not forget that many of these anti-abortion types are also VERY pro-death penalty. So for them, it's really just a matter of timing. Actually the anti abortion types are that way because they believe they are saving INNOCENT lives. They are pro death because they believe the criminal in question is GUILTY of something and a threat to society. Now I am pro choice and anti death penalty and don't necessarily see it the same way, but I don't see the views as conflicting.

njlauren -> RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (6/15/2013 10:42:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cordeliasub This is an interesting idea........I guess Here is the overarching question for me: Is it "right" to intentionally inflict pain (I am not speaking about the BDSM genre here)? For example, is Suzie appalled when an animal is abused or a litter of puppies is drowned because the owner can't handle more dogs, or the inhumane way that chickens are slaughtered? If so, it would seem to take a bit of cognitive dissonance to decry these things but be unfazed by the pain a human would experience. So for me the key would be consistency. I would find it....interesting for someone to be a militant member of PETA and march to "save the trees" and be against fishing because they might feel pain.....but get all defensive about it being perfectly fine for a baby who has not yet been born to feel the pain of being burned or dismembered or whatnot. Otherwise it smacks of self-interest and hypocrisy. There is hypocrisy all over the place, the same religious groups that denounce abortion as killing, including things like the morning after pill, are the same religious groups that either turn a blind eye to the death penalty or enthusiastically support it, like evangelical Christians. The problem with your post is it is presenting known truths against moral conjectures, and that is entire problem with the abortion debate, the whole idea of fetuses as being fully human rests, not on science, not on knowledge, but on some sort of religious framework that says that from the moment of conception i.e a fertilized, single cell egg, it is fully human, blessed with God dust/ a soul, and therefore, terminating that is killing a human being. When you drown kittens, or abuse an animal, it is a living, breathing thing, and they do feel pain, there is zero doubt about that, the same way that strapping someone to a chair and zapping them, or killing them with gas or drugs, is killing a living,breathing human being, there is no ambiguity there... For example, what makes us human beings is being self aware, knowing we are alive, knowing we are a person....that comes from our brains, yet the brain doesn't fully form until well into the 4th or 5th month..so is a fetus human at that point? The nervous system, where we feel pain, doesn't form until the 22nd week or after,that is scientific consensus, yet anti abortion types show fetuses much earlier in the womb and claiming how it is showing 'feeling', which generally are autonomous movements (anyone remember the schiavo case, where the religious types showed films of her supposedly reacting to stimulous, 'smiling' and so forth? When they did the autopsy, which the parents tried to prevent, it showed she had basically only a minimal brainstem, which meant that those movies and Bill Frist were nothing more than bullshit). The point being that PETA and the rest are at least acting on science, in the sense that we know animals feel pain, experience fear, and things like factory farming are not only painful for the animals, it also isn't good for us, whereas 'pro life ' people are basing their stuff on ideology, not science. People have the right to their moral beliefs, but when you are making law that pits one set of morals against another, rather than on science and proven harm, it is not about hypocrisy, it is about law and not telling someone what to do in the law based on your religious and moral beliefs. The law reflects this with people in general, the law, for example, forbids you from killing someone, yet it is legal to do so in self defense, because the harm of you killing a person is outweighed by the harm of you not protecting yourself. The state has been allowed to kill people, execute them, for certain crimes they feel are so onerous, it is justified, whether it be treason, or killing someone, or doing something heinous enough to warrant it, because of the harm that person causes. What laws like this represent is people because of their personal morality deciding to force their beliefs on others, it is no different then making it illegal to buy alcohol or shop on sundays.

njlauren -> RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (6/15/2013 10:49:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: I find the hypocrisy of feeling pain for a fetus while it is in the womb but not caring how hurt or hungry or abused a child is when it is living outside the womb. (especially ignoring the poverty, illness and other problems faced by parents raising them after they are born). to be more horrendous... The height of hypocrisy.... Care about it while its in the womb..... Not give a damn about it after its out. And you know for a fact that those who appose abortion stop caring about the kid after it's born? Just how do you judge something like that? Do you follow the anti abortionists around and watch how they interact with kids? Do they go around and try to stop any kind of aid that might be aimed at children? I keep hearing this same statement but I have never heard any facts to back it up. Doesn't take a rocket scientist, do some google work and it won't be hard to fine. First of all, take a look at the anti abortion representatives we have in congress, and what do most of them have in common? That's right, most of them are in favor of slashing government programs that help the poor, a disproportionate amount of which goes to help children (WIC and food stamps, specifically). Same clowns want to gut government spending on education, which again tends to go to the poorest of us, they want to gut federal aid to higher eduction,that in many cases is the difference of a poor kid going to college or not, and so forth. Polls of pro life people in the majority show that most of them are also opposed to programs like head start, government funded school meals, anti poverty programs, welfare and the like....so it isn't exactly hard to make statements like that. Pro life beliefs tend to be strongest in the states with the most minimal programs for the poor, including poor children, and that is another indicator. And let me leave you with this thought: When was the last time you saw a pro life religion, like the RC, go out of its way to threaten politicians who routinely try to gut programs for the poor , much of which are aimed at children, they way they do over abortion? Here in NJ, several Catholic Bishops basically came out and said Catholics should vote for Romney, because he is against abortion, yet not one of them mentioned the fact that Romney's budge plans had programs for the poor being slashes to the bone......

DaddySatyr -> RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (6/15/2013 10:54:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69 And let's not forget that many of these anti-abortion types are also VERY pro-death penalty. So for them, it's really just a matter of timing. Not in my case. It's a matter of convicted felon vs. un-born; by definition, incapable of breaking any laws. Nice try, though. Peace and comfort, Michael

deliriuminabox -> RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (6/15/2013 11:05:29 AM)
Fast Reply I'm not sure how informing women of all the potential consequences of a decision is a bad thing. Why the outrage? Prior to making ANY major medical decision, I would want to know I had been given as much information as possible; even if that knowledge might horrify me. At least I know.

Baroana -> RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (6/15/2013 11:10:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: I find the hypocrisy of feeling pain for a fetus while it is in the womb but not caring how hurt or hungry or abused a child is when it is living outside the womb. (especially ignoring the poverty, illness and other problems faced by parents raising them after they are born). to be more horrendous... The height of hypocrisy.... Care about it while its in the womb..... Not give a damn about it after its out. I'll bet it's painful for a child to be hungry and malnourished..... or sick with cancer, diabetes, etcetera and have to go without treatment.

njlauren -> RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (6/15/2013 11:35:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: cordeliasub This is an interesting idea........I guess Here is the overarching question for me: Is it "right" to intentionally inflict pain (I am not speaking about the BDSM genre here)? For example, is Suzie appalled when an animal is abused or a litter of puppies is drowned because the owner can't handle more dogs, or the inhumane way that chickens are slaughtered? If so, it would seem to take a bit of cognitive dissonance to decry these things but be unfazed by the pain a human would experience. So for me the key would be consistency. I would find it....interesting for someone to be a militant member of PETA and march to "save the trees" and be against fishing because they might feel pain.....but get all defensive about it being perfectly fine for a baby who has not yet been born to feel the pain of being burned or dismembered or whatnot. Otherwise it smacks of self-interest and hypocrisy. Ok I laugh at those folks myself. My personal favorite was the girl in the prochoice shirt who was having a fit because someone suggested she eat an egg. She made it very clear that she would never eat a "chicken fetus", that was just unthinkable. After all that baby chick has a right to a happy life too, the human fetus, well we all know that's not a child yet. Big difference, the hen didn't choose to give that egg to the farmer, with abortion the mother, to whom the fetus belongs, makes the choice. With Chickens, human beings are taking the 'fetuses' of other species to eat, the mother has no choice, and since the animals can't speak for themselves, human beings are simply using them. I am not a vegetarian, I don't hold the views of someone like her, but what the answer is she respects the fact that with abortion, the mother, who has the whole burden of raising a child a lot of the time, of the various things that might make it a bad thing, made the decision. Put it this way, I never heard PETA protesting when, for example, A female rabbit will re-adsorb their unborn fetuses or another species will kill its young to protect themselves from predators, it is because in that case the animal is making its own decisions based on instinct, which is roughly analagous to what a women choses to do when pregnant.

njlauren -> RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (6/15/2013 11:42:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl ~FR /rant Has anyone.... ANYONE... given a thought to what would happen if these bills got pushed through and were allowed to stand? No abortions? for any reason? Lets not even discuss back street abortions. Lets talk about needing increased spending in 6 - 10 years... for schools.. for teachers.. for lunches... for insurance... how many more single mothers will we have.... how many more courts will we need for child support?.... how many more on TANF?... how many more on food stamps? ... how much is this "push" to prevent a woman from exercising her rights going to cost the country? 800,000 abortions a year.. for various reasons. I wish that wasnt the case. 2010.... Number of births: 3,999,386 so, out of 5 million pregnancies, not including spontaneous miscarriages.... 16% end up in miscarriage. To damn many. How many more would there have been had the availability of the morning after pill not been available? Who the hell knows. But even half that amount... Imagine... in less than 10 years... a 16% increase in the population every year. Because, as we all know, most women who get abortions are not using it as birth control... they arent getting an abortion each month. And yet they want to cut programs that support these "fetuses" after they are born So, forgive me if I have the attitude that I think they care while its inside... but fuck them when its out. Want to stop this? Push to make more effective birth control. No woman WANTS an abortion. /end fucking rant The guys who wrote the book "Freakanomics" did a whole section on aborton, and they basically make the case that the opportunity cost of illegal abortion is huge, that it would surge demand on social services, on prisons, on all kinds of things that would in turn drag down the economy...it was an interesting argument, to say the least. One of the problems with the anti abortion/pro life types is that they also tend to see pregnancy as a 'wage of sin' and basically think that if a woman has to fear getting pregnant and not have abortion legal, it will somehow stop them from having sex (no different then the attitude of evangelicals who when the AIDS crisis hit,claimed it was God's punishment on gays and so forth). The other irony of the pro life movement is that a large majority of them are anti sex as well, they are the ones who push to get funding to planned parenthood cut (and it isn't about abortion, since federal money cannot be used for abortion), the absolutely idiotic "abstinence only" sex ed that is common now in large parts of this country and the like. The same people who bemoan the over 1 million abortions done a year are pretty much almost always the same people who claim that sex ed and condom distribution leads to promiscuity, the two are tied (and no, there are also significant if minority voices in the pro life community who realize that cutting down abortions is a worthy goal, and that sex ed and such can help bring that number down). Then, of course, if we made abortion illegal and state systems were flooded with unwanted kids, the foster care system, welfare, etc got swamped, the same people would be bitching about tax money going to those 'freeloaders'

njlauren -> RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (6/15/2013 11:48:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69 And let's not forget that many of these anti-abortion types are also VERY pro-death penalty. So for them, it's really just a matter of timing. Actually the anti abortion types are that way because they believe they are saving INNOCENT lives. They are pro death because they believe the criminal in question is GUILTY of something and a threat to society. Now I am pro choice and anti death penalty and don't necessarily see it the same way, but I don't see the views as conflicting. Actually, that isn't true, while there are people in favor of the death penalty because they believe it deters crime, a lot of it is based on two other points 1)They believe in vengeance, in the eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth and 2)they say it is more cost effective, that they don't want the cost of a prisoner for life being placed on the state, and killing them saves money. On top of everything else, there isn't one shred of evidence that the death penalty prevents crimes, is a deterrent, and it definitely does't save money. Texas has a very vigorous death penalty, for example, they execute more prisoners than even some countries like Iran do, and yet Texas has one of the highest violent crime and murder rates in the country, it is near the top on FBI stats, whereas states that haven't executed anyone in generations like NY and NJ, are fairly low on the list (I may be wrong, but Dallas and Houston I believe have higher murder rates then NYC, NYC last year had 600 murders with a population of 8 million, as an example)....

tazzygirl -> RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (6/15/2013 1:19:35 PM)
quote: Actually this part of the thread started with Suzie, now could you please explain when the political movement came into play? Sure... The OP.

MariaB -> RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (6/15/2013 1:22:03 PM)
I'm certainly not against abortion but I am against late abortion when the baby is of an age to be viable outside of the womb (except in urgent medical cases). My sister gave birth to a baby boy when she was 23 weeks. He weighed just over 1lb and was around 12 inches long. He was a little fighter who has grown up to be a well rounded and healthy individual with no medical issues caused by his early birth. Babies of his gestation are still regularly aborted because life begins when the mother thinks it begins, not when anybody else thinks it begins. In the US around 12 hundred babies a year are born alive after failed late term abortions. Many of those babies are then left to die, some are rightly saved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCV9BKKsEjI

tazzygirl -> RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (6/15/2013 1:24:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deliriuminabox Fast Reply I'm not sure how informing women of all the potential consequences of a decision is a bad thing. Why the outrage? Prior to making ANY major medical decision, I would want to know I had been given as much information as possible; even if that knowledge might horrify me. At least I know. Before they take that gallbladder out, do they shove a wand inside you, turn on the ultrasound, and force you to watch how it works? Why the outrage.... have you not read the thread? Do so then get back to me.

tazzygirl -> RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (6/15/2013 1:32:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB I'm certainly not against abortion but I am against late abortion when the baby is of an age to be viable outside of the womb (except in urgent medical cases). My sister gave birth to a baby boy when she was 23 weeks. He measured just over 1lb and was around 12 inches long. He was a little fighter who has grown up to be a well rounded and healthy individual with no medical issues caused by his early birth. Babies of his gestation are still regularly aborted because life begins when the mother thinks it begins, not when anybody else thinks it begins. In the US around 12 hundred babies a year are born alive after failed late term abortions. Many of those babies are then left to die, some are rightly saved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCV9BKKsEjI I do believe most people who are pro choice would agree with you. I dont like late term abortions either. Very few physicians will perform one without it being medically necessary. But, babies being "regularly aborted" at his gestational age is in error. Most abortions are performed before 20 weeks. In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted between 13 and 15 weeks, 4.2% between 16 and 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks. [image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/UK_abortion_by_gestational_age_2004_histogram.svg/450px-UK_abortion_by_gestational_age_2004_histogram.svg.png[/image]

DomKen -> RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (6/15/2013 2:13:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB In the US around 12 hundred babies a year are born alive after failed late term abortions. Many of those babies are then left to die, some are rightly saved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCV9BKKsEjI That claim is absolutely ludicrous. If 800,000 abortions occur each year and 1.4% are after 21 weeks then only 11,200 abortions occur after 21 weeks. Your claim is that roughly 10% of those result in a live birth. Just how incompetent do you doctors are? BTW Jessen's claims are unsupported by any evidence and there are shall we say extreme doubts about every claim involved. First off a 32 weeks abortion was never legal anywhere in the US. Roe v Wade says abortions can be banned after the fetus is viable outside the womb and there is no doubts that a 32 week fetus is viable. There is quite a little industry of people who make wild claims about themselves touring churches, especially fundamentalist churches. This includes people who claim to be former satanic high priests and muslim terrorists. She seems to be part of that group.

cordeliasub -> RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (6/15/2013 3:00:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69 And let's not forget that many of these anti-abortion types are also VERY pro-death penalty. So for them, it's really just a matter of timing. Tell ya what....you show me an example of an unborn baby who has committed premeditated violent murder and I'll adapt my stance.

DomKen -> RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (6/15/2013 3:08:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cordeliasub quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69 And let's not forget that many of these anti-abortion types are also VERY pro-death penalty. So for them, it's really just a matter of timing. Tell ya what....you show me an example of an unborn baby who has committed premeditated violent murder and I'll adapt my stance. How about I show you someone who was executed who had not committed premeditated violent murder? Will you change your stance then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

tazzygirl -> RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (6/15/2013 3:25:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cordeliasub quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69 And let's not forget that many of these anti-abortion types are also VERY pro-death penalty. So for them, it's really just a matter of timing. Tell ya what....you show me an example of an unborn baby who has committed premeditated violent murder and I'll adapt my stance. Umm... how many men have sat in prison who were innocent?

cordeliasub -> RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (6/15/2013 3:26:52 PM)
Actually you do have a point. I am not a huge fan of the death penalty, honestly. I mean...IF it is absolutely, 100%, there is no chance the jury was wrong, certain that someone violently killed another human being with premeditation....then I can see it. But if there is even a sliver of a chance they are innocent....better to err on the side of life. You can always exonerate someone who is serving life in prison if they are found to be innocent. And if not, they will die in prison anyway. But once someone is executed there are no do-overs. And executing someone innocent is a horrible tragedy. So yes....as I have read more over the years about new technology exonerating people, my stance on the death penalty has shifted. Maybe I have watched way too much scifi...but I honestly wish that there was a way for a baby being carried by a rape or incest victim could...continue to grow somewhere besides that poor victim's womb so that she wouldn't have to endure a trauma induced pregnancy AND the baby could continue to live. Yeah, I know..... And someone up a few posts is right....people who are pro-life inside the womb had better be pro-life after the child is born as well. Put your actions where your mouth is. If you don;t want a girl who was kicked out for being pregnant to have an abortion...step up and give her a place to live. If you don;t want a woman who already has 5 kids and is single and poverty stricken to abort that next mouth she cannot feed...then step up and help take care of her or her children. And if you don;t want people who don;t want kids having abortions....then stop making it tough for them to prevent pregnancy through birth control.

slvemike4u -> RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (6/15/2013 4:39:57 PM)
I don't like speaking in absolutes....but juries being absolutely 100% ,not even a sliver of a chance of being wrong is actually the exception....not the norm. So yeah I have a big problem with the death penalty,it starts with the state committing murder in my name....I object to such actions On the other hand I'm pro choice( as opposed to pro abortion which,in my mind,is a made up position)

dcnovice -> RE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (6/15/2013 5:06:33 PM)
FR Fascinating article. Of course, it left me with more questions than answers. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/magazine/10Fetal-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625